Re: Croats and Slavs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> GK: On the matter of the historical "Croats": I am leaning
>
> > > > towards the notion that they might have been named after their
>
> > > > initial organizer. The name does appear separately in the list
>
> > > > of the migrant clans given by Constantine Porph. in the
>
> > > > mid-10th c.
>
> > > > If the Avar Khan Bayan appointed an Avar warrior called
>
> > > > "Horvat" (or something similar) to the task of putting together
>
> > > > Avaria's northern defenses in and along the Carpathians
>
> > > > (against the threatening Turks of Asia who conquered Kerch in
>
> > > > 576 and made demands on Constantinople against the Avars), this
>
> > > > Horvat might have drafted a considerable numbern of subject
>
> > > > Slavs (and others) into his divisions (or whatever they were
>
> > > > called), and the various groups would become "Horvat's men" =
>
> > > > Croats. There are many historical analogies to this onomastic
>
> > > > procedure.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > No. This is what is known as a 'root etymology': the root element
>
> > > matches, but the suffixes don't.
>
> > >
>
> > > GK: The similarity I'm thinking about is that manifested in the
>
> > > name of the Nogai Tatars,
>
> > Not a root etmology.
>
> >
>
> > > the Uldingir (from the Hun ruler Uldin, a generation before
>
> > > Attila),
>
> > Not a root etymology.
>
> >
>
> > > the Aspurgiani of the Bosporos,
>
> > Nor that one.
>
> >
>
> > > the "Scythians" of the Greek Pontic genealogical myth,
>
> > So you think the mythical eponymous hero really existed?
>
> >
>
> > GK: No. But some of the Olbians obviously did.
>
>
>
> Walk me through your imagined scenario of ethnonyming here. So,
> first a people invent a person they imagine founded their ethnic
> etc group, and then they decide to refer to themselves individually
> by that person's name?
>
> ****GK: Why ask me? Ask the Olbians (:=))))****

You envisioned the scenario here. So I'll ask again: walk me through it.

>
> > > the theory of a Byzantine author (I forget the name for the
>
> > > moment) that the "rus'" were named after a chieftain by that
>
> > > name,
>
> > Ditto. Also not a root etymology.
>
> >
>
> > GK: You're wrong on this one I'm afraid.
>
> In what sense? If you are implying that mr. Rus' actually existed why
>
> do you call that Byzantine author's account of the naming a 'theory'?
>
> ****GK: I think you understand perfectly what I am saying.

Yes I do and it makes no sense. Now will you answer the question you tried to dodge with that last line?

> "Rus'" is a term which can be used as either a personal name (as
> per the Byzantine's view) or as an ethnic referent for a people.

And that is because that person never existed but was made up. The proof is that you won't find Rus' as a fist name (but possible as a last name) anywhere outside that foundation myth.

> The suffix problem you raised doesn't apply here. Where's the
> reason it should apply to the Croats?

There is nothing to apply.

> And the basic idea (like Nogais from Nogai etc.) holds. ****

No.

>
> > And if the people of "Rus'" can be called "the Rus'" how do you
> > prove this acceptable irregularity ( as per your notion) can't
> > apply to the Croats?
>
>
> >
>
> Exactly, if. Please answer the above question.
>
> ****GK: See above.****
>
>
>
> > > the Slavic genealogical myth of "Lekh, Czech and Rus'" etc etc.
>
> > Ditto. And ditto.

Anyone else with first names of Lekh, Czech and Rus'?

> >
>
> > GK: But doesn't fully apply to "Rus'". See above...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> See above...
>
> ****GK: See above.****
>

And you still can't figure out how to clean up your posting of annoying extra lines?


Torsten